DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 11/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 of remarks filed 11/10/2025 that the claims provide an improvement to virtual reality by using aggregation and filtration of user specific data to provide personally tailored selection of products to users that is level specific and using artificial intelligence mechanism in a manner that reduces the amount of computing resources, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
A specific way of achieving a result at a level specific by aggregation and filtration of user specific data to personalize product selections is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how using artificial intelligence reduces computing resources and improves virtual reality. Providing personalized products based on user specific data that is aggregated and filtered solves a commercial problem of providing products that are specific to the user but it does not appear to solve a problem rooted in technology. The computing device recited in the claims is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the claim do not include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology in virtual reality.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 of remarks filed 11/10/2025 that the claims are significantly more than the concept of organizing human activity because the functionalities cannot be performed in the mind, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity is not defined as having to be performed by the human mind. The enumerated grouping of mental process involves using the human mind, however, the instant claims have not been grouped as directed to mental processes.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 15-16 of remarks filed 11/10/2025 that Rathod fails to teach artificial intelligence or machine learning and avatars correlating filtered user activity data to a plurality of catalogs because it would not make sense, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., artificial intelligence or machine learning) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments that it would not makes sense for Rathod to teach the avatars do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites wherein generating a virtual-environment based marketplace comprises, rendering said claim indefinite because it is unclear whether a virtual-environment based marketplace recited in claim 5 is the same or different from the virtual-environment based marketplace recited in independent claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the computer program product comprising or more computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether or more computer readable storage media is a typographic error and should recite “one or more computer readable storage media” or whether or more computer readable storage media is different from the one or more computer readable storage media. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this following limitations in
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite: the analysis…;…the aggregation;
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite: the generation;
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite: the marketplace…; the analyzed user activity data;
Claim 6 recites: the filtering.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are is directed to a computer program product comprising computer readable storage media (applicant’s specification, [0019]: computer readable storage medium is not to be construed in the form of transitory signals per se), and claims 15-20 are directed to a system (which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
constructing personalized… environment-based marketplaces, the method comprising:
analyzing, …, a plurality of user activity data associated with a user and determining a plurality of contextual information associated with the user;
aggregating, …, the plurality of user activity data based on the analysis to filter the plurality of user activity data based on one or more derivatives of the contextual information; and
generating, …, …environment-based marketplace in accordance with the aggregation…
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to sales activities and commercial interactions because the claim involves analyzing user activity data for a user, aggregating the activity data, and generating a marketplace in accordance with the aggregation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
…virtual…;…, by a computing device,…; … by the computing device …; …by the computing device … a virtual…wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is generated by a generative model and comprises a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of avatars correlating the filtered plurality of user activity data to a plurality of catalogs visualized in the virtual environment-based marketplace (Claims 1);
…, by the computing device, …the virtual …the virtual …(Claims 4, 11, and 17);
wherein generating a virtual-environment based marketplace comprises: utilizing, by the computing device, a generative model to construct the virtual-environment based marketplace wherein the marketplace is a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of virtual stores selected corresponding to the analyzed user activity data (Claims, 5, 12, & 18);
…, by the computing device,…, by the computing device, …(Claims 6, 13, 19);
wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is a visualization of an augmented reality-based virtual space comprising one or more holographic projection of products related to the user activity data configured to be traversed by an avatar representing the user (Claims 7,14, & 20);
A computer program product for constructing personalized virtual environment-based marketplaces, the computer program product comprising or more computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the stored program instructions comprising: program instructions…;… program instructions…; program instructions…virtual…wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is generated by a generative model and comprises a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of avatars correlating filtered user activity data to a plurality of catalogs visualized in the virtual environment-based marketplace (Claim 8);
A computer system for constructing personalized virtual environment-based marketplaces, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more computer-readable memories; program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising: program instructions…; program instructions…; program instructions……virtual…wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is generated by a generative model and comprises a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of avatars correlating filtered user activity data to a plurality of catalogs visualized in the virtual environment-based marketplace (Claim 15);
program instructions (Claims 9, 11-13, 16-19).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
…virtual…;…, by a computing device,…; … by the computing device …; …by the computing device … a virtual…wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is generated by a generative model and comprises a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of avatars correlating the filtered plurality of user activity data to a plurality of catalogs visualized in the virtual environment-based marketplace (Claims 1);
…, by the computing device, …the virtual …the virtual …(Claims 4, 11, and 17);
wherein generating a virtual-environment based marketplace comprises: utilizing, by the computing device, a generative model to construct the virtual-environment based marketplace wherein the marketplace is a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of virtual stores selected corresponding to the analyzed user activity data (Claims, 5, 12, & 18);
…, by the computing device,…, by the computing device, …(Claims 6, 13, 19);
wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is a visualization of an augmented reality-based virtual space comprising one or more holographic projection of products related to the user activity data configured to be traversed by an avatar representing the user (Claims 7,14, & 20);
A computer program product for constructing personalized virtual environment-based marketplaces, the computer program product comprising or more computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the stored program instructions comprising: program instructions…;… program instructions…; program instructions…virtual…wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is generated by a generative model and comprises a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of avatars correlating filtered user activity data to a plurality of catalogs visualized in the virtual environment-based marketplace (Claim 8);
A computer system for constructing personalized virtual environment-based marketplaces, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more computer-readable memories; program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising: program instructions…; program instructions…; program instructions……virtual…wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is generated by a generative model and comprises a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of avatars correlating filtered user activity data to a plurality of catalogs visualized in the virtual environment-based marketplace (Claim 15);
program instructions (Claims 9, 11-13, 16-19).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rathod et al. (US Pub. No. 20180350144 A1, hereinafter “Rathod”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15
Rathod discloses a computer-implemented method for constructing personalized virtual environment-based marketplaces, the method comprising (Rathod, [0107]: computer implemented for virtual simulations of real life activities; [0129]: market):
analyzing, by a computing device, a plurality of user activity data associated with a user and determining a plurality of contextual information associated with the user; aggregating, by the computing device, the plurality of user activity data based on the analysis to filter the plurality of user activity data based on one or more derivatives of the contextual information (Rathod, [0290]: identifies user's one or more types of activities in real world; [0291]: analyze and log one or more of user’s activities; [0292]: determining user activities, senses, and actions in real world including one or more types of content data (e.g. date, time, and location) to identify real world objects; [0301]: identifies and adds user activities; [0336]: search and filter user activities based on content data (e.g. date and time); [0130]: contextual one or more types of contents, media, data and metadata);
and generating, by the computing device, a virtual environment-based marketplace in accordance with the aggregation wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is generated by a generative model and comprises a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of avatars correlating the filtered plurality of user activity data to a plurality of catalogs visualized in the virtual environment-based marketplace (Rathod, [0300]: display associated or determined or contextual one or more types of said monitored activity equivalent virtual objects in virtual world based on said identified one or more types of activities in real world; [0107]: generating a virtual world simulations based on real environment based on user activities; [0110]: hosting virtual world based on user’s real world location that is tracked and displays 360-degree virtual tour of real world including building, mall, and floor; [0119]: virtual world comprises multi-dimensional format with indoors and outdoors of locations, places, buildings; [0458]: creating user's realistic 3D animated avatar 4501/4507 based on one or more photos and/or videos and/or one or more types of data and metadata by employing techniques (For example Loom.ai) or 3D modeling of user's realistic 3D animated avatar based on location and time of user’s activities; [0126]: simulating one or more avatars based on user activity; [0313]: virtual worlds with avatars and with objects related to products and services; [0314]: avatars and showing visual connection link as virtual representations where user can click and select products to purchase in 3D).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16
Rathod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising accessing the plurality of contextual information associated with the user based on partitioned reference metadata derived from the correlation (Rathod, [0129]: access activity type specific contextual template simulation of particular activity; [0335]: identifies contextual types of virtual objects; [0130]: contextual one or more types of contents, media, data and metadata; [0043]: using the one or more types of contents associated data and metadata to associate virtual objects with object criteria; [0080]: metadata related to user’s activities, actions, senses, participated events, behaviours, conducted transactions, communications, collaborations, connections, sharing, and associated date and time, location).
Regarding claims 3 and 10
Rathod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user activity data comprises one or more of browsing history of the user, time range, relevant shopper activity, duration of usage, chatbot interactivity metric, or combination thereof (Rathod, [0129]: browsing websites; [0011]: user’s current or past data; [0127]: user data includes date and time, shopping activities; [0093]: duration; [0310]: usage; [0319]: chat; [0370]: chat or instant messenger).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17
Rathod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein aggregating comprises: determining, by the computing device, an amount of time and a type of content associated with the user interacting within the virtual environment-based marketplace in order to optimize the generation of the virtual environment-based marketplace (Rathod, [0290]: identifies user's one or more types of activities in real world; [0291]: analyze and log one or more of user’s activities; [0301]: identifies and adds user activities; [0015]: provide schedules or date & times or ranges of date & times (from-to date & times), provide or upload one or more virtual objects or virtual elements, provide associated rules including duration; [0093]: identifying associated one or more type of activities or actions, names, duration of conducting or participating or doing of one or more types of activities and actions; [0107]: generating a virtual world based on real environment based on user activities).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18
Rathod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating a virtual-environment based marketplace comprises: utilizing, by the computing device, a generative model to construct the virtual-environment based marketplace wherein the marketplace is a multi-dimensional hierarchal shopping floor comprising a plurality of virtual stores selected corresponding to the analyzed user activity data (Rathod, [0107]: generating a virtual world based on real environment based on user activities; [0110]: 360-degree views or 360-degree virtual tour of real world including building, mall, and floor; [0119]: virtual world comprises multi-dimensional format with indoors and outdoors of locations, places, buildings).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19
Rathod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein aggregating comprises: filtering, by the computing device, the user activity data based on an analysis of the plurality of contextual information; wherein the filtering comprises tagging, by the computing device, the user activity data with access privilege metadata based on the analysis of the plurality of contextual information (Rathod, [0263]: automatically associate one or more types of data and metadata; [0112]: tracking and logging a plurality types of information, one or more types of contents, data and metadata related to user activities; [0124]: metadata to identify user's one or more types of activities; [0336]: filter activities displayed as metadata).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 20
Rathod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual environment-based marketplace is a visualization of an augmented reality-based virtual space comprising one or more holographic projection of products related to the user activity data configured to be traversed by an avatar representing the user (Rathod, [0107]: generating a virtual world based on real environment based on user activities; [0110]: 360-degree views or 360-degree virtual tour of real world including building, mall, and floor; [0119]: virtual world comprises multi-dimensional format; [0122]: select avatar of user based on change of type of activity including if user is traveling via particular type of vehicle then change avatar or image depicting that user is travelling; [0126]: generates or records visual world or simulation of said activity displaying that avatar of user performing activities).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Abraham et al. (US Pub. No. 20130317950 A1) related to creating a virtual store customized based on user behavior, Crow et al. (US Pub. No. 20160371768 A1) related to generates a virtual world including objects, representations of users, and locations for presentation to online system users, and non-patent literature, User Activity Monitoring and Personalized Recommendations for Enhancing the VR Shopping Experience, related to virtual reality shopping environments using AI-based recommendation algorithms to analyze user profiles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 5712726763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688